AUGUSTA, Maine - With drone technology getting more advanced every year, and with it the potential for snooping on people's private lives, efforts are underway to regulate the activities of Unmaned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs. Two bills up before the Maine Legislature aim to control drone use.
LD 482 - an Act to To Protect the Privacy of Citizens from Domestic Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Uses - was introduced by GOP Rep. Russell Black from Wilton, on behalf of the Maine Farm Bureau. "The intent of this bill is simply to protect our right to privacy on our land and property," Black said. "Many people feel that the right to privacy is violated when unmanned drones are being flown over our land without written permission."
Black insists that this is not an effort to halt search and rescue efforts, but simply to protect private property rights.
The point was echoed by Clark Granger, a farmer and forest landowner from Woolwich, who spoke on behalf of the Maine Farm Bureau. He said farmers are concerned about having their activities monitored, possibly by business rivals looking to check out their crop-growing activity.
"It's the potential negative aspects of drone use by others that concern our farmers, especially those uses likely to result in a loss of privacy," Granger said. "Modern drones are now readily available to everyone." Granger says drone kits can be bought online for as little as $60.
Many more spoke in opposition to the bill, including drone operators, law enforcement officials, land surveyors, realtors and hobbyists. William Lord is with the U.S. Association of Videographers. "Rather than encouraging the entrepreneurial growth of a new technology, LD 482 severely limits UAV flights in Maine," Lord said.
Lord also maintains that the act is unnecessary because the issue is already addressed in current Maine law. Opponents also said it was unreasonable that someone who owns a drone that accidently flies over someone else's property would face a $500 fine.
Major Chris Grotton is with the Maine State Police. "We understand the privacy concerns and the desire to limit the potential intrusion of an aircraft flying over our property," he said.
But he said this approach - singling out one particular device and virtually eliminating its use - is not sound policy for the state. "Instead we should view this as we view a manned aircraft, an ultra-light, helicopter, hang glider, addressing concerns about privacy intrusions using existing and effective statutes to investigate and prosecute violations, regardless of the technology of the device involved," Grotton said.
The other bill controlling drone use was put forward by Democratic Rep. Diane Russell of Portland. LD 25 aims to protect the privacy rights of citizens against unnecessary surveillance by law enforcement agencies. It would do this by requiring them to get a warrant before using a drone as part of an investigation.
Russell says drone use has the potential to infringe on the constitutional rights of Mainers - especially protection against unreasonable search and seizures: the Fourth Amendment. "Our founders could not have imagined that a small device could fly over someone's property capturing video or audio of what was happening in real time."
Russell's bill got support from, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine.
Speaking in opposition: several of the voices who also opposed LD 482, including Maj. Grotton of the Maine State Police. He says sufficient safeguards are already in place, and that Mainers' rights under the Fourth Amendment will actually protect them from being spied on.
"Together with clarifying doctrine well established through hundreds of years of case law this ensures that a process exists to suppress any information or evidence or punish the government when they inappropriately information," Grotton said.
Opponents of both bills also pointed out that federal policymakers have yet to formulate a final set of rules on how to regulate drone activity. And given that all public airspace is controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration, it would be wise, they say, to await further guidance from the feds before enacting any state laws.